How is a win won through cheating still considered valid? If I won an olympic Gold medal, and then it was found that I was using Steroids, they would take the Medal away and nobody would call me an olympic Gold medalist. They would call me a cheater, plain and simple.

Whether or not Barnett was railroaded/screwed over or not doesn't make too much of a difference because all we know is that the governing body that is in charge of this stuff says that he tested positive for steroids.

According the the records, he cheated. Therefore his win gotten while cheating is/should be invalid.

I can't believe that anybody is claiming any kind of conspiracy against a guy who had failed 3 piss tests on three different occasions in two different states. Maybe nobody is out to get Josh but Josh, just a thought.

__________________

"If you get hit and it hurts hit him back you not knocked out yet."-Joe Doerksen

For me, it doesn't matter that he was a "former" champion. Whether that monacre was earned or not, he's not the champion now, nor is he even fighting in the organization in which it was awarded, then taken.

Honestly this comes down to the basics. How was Barnett stripped of the title? He had to have been awarded the title first. Whether he attempted to defend it or not. He was still the champion for a short period of time. Frank Mir is a similar example, he was awarded the title. Got into a motorcycle accident, and was stripped of the title because he couldn't defend it. Because he never entered the cage as the UFC Heavyweight champion, does it somehow mean he was never the champion?

While the situations differ greatly the same principle applies. Barnett won the title, becoming the HW champion. The moment he announcer says who the winner is, they're the champion. Barnett was then stripped of the title days later. For that short period he was the HW champion. Thus, former UFC HW champion. To have something taken away it must be gained initially. The very fact that the word "stripped" is used denotes that achievement.

Also: LOL @ the Barnett conspiracy. He roided, end of story.

__________________

Sig courtesy of that photo-matic magician limba

Quote:

I went out the way that I fight. I went out on my shield. Thatís it. Done. --Chuck Liddell

For me, it doesn't matter that he was a "former" champion. Whether that monacre was earned or not, he's not the champion now, nor is he even fighting in the organization in which it was awarded, then taken.

Honestly this comes down to the basics. How was Barnett stripped of the title? He had to have been awarded the title first. Whether he attempted to defend it or not. He was still the champion for a short period of time. Frank Mir is a similar example, he was awarded the title. Got into a motorcycle accident, and was stripped of the title because he couldn't defend it. Because he never entered the cage as the UFC Heavyweight champion, does it somehow mean he was never the champion?

While the situations differ greatly the same principle applies. Barnett won the title, becoming the HW champion. The moment he announcer says who the winner is, they're the champion. Barnett was then stripped of the title days later. For that short period he was the HW champion. Thus, former UFC HW champion. To have something taken away it must be gained initially. The very fact that the word "stripped" is used denotes that achievement.

Also: LOL @ the Barnett conspiracy. He roided, end of story.

Failing a drug test invalidates the fight. Thus the win never took place as far as the record books go so no he wasn't champion at any point in time. Them announcing him the champion doesn't matter because it is pending confirmation that he didn't get caught cheating. Stripped refers to the physical repossession of the title because it didn't belong to him. If he had snuck into the champions hotel room and stolen the title from his luggage would you call him the champ? Because that is what he did he took something that he knew didn't belong to him.